|
Reply:
Plan B//shygd
Replied by( Noman)
Replied on (23/Oct/2006)
American prestige has taken a hard knock; it will probably take a harder knock...The tides of Sunni salafism and Iran's distinct combination of messianism and power politics have not crested
*********QUOTE* ********* ******
American prestige has taken a hard knock; it will probably take a harder knock....... ......... ......The tides of Sunni salafism
and Iran's distinct combination of messianism and power
politics have not crested,and will not crest without much greater violence ............ .....
*************** ********* ****** | |
COMMENTARY |
|
| |
|
Plan B
By ELIOT A. COHEN
October 20, 2006; Page A12
That the Iraq war is, if not a failure, failing, requires little demonstration. By all measures -- but above all, the sheer insecurity of daily life in Baghdad -- things have been getting worse, not better. Yes, there are islands of security and stability, particularly in the Kurdish north; but the communal violence between Sunni and Shia has gotten worse. The Iraqi army has improved, but the police, consigned to secondary relevance by the U.S., are penetrated by militias. Iranian influence spreads, and Iranian-designed and -manufactured improvised explosive devices inflict higher tolls on American troops. With an eye to the forthcoming American elections, the enemy is ratcheting up the violence, and successfully.
It will be important in future years to settle whether the Iraq war was the right idea badly executed, an enterprise doomed to disappoint, or simply folly. There will be individuals to be held accountable (not all of whom have been in the crosshairs of journalists and partisans), and institutions whose shortcomings require not only soul-searching but reform. That's for later. The question now is, what should we do?
The current course -- Plan A -- involves an open-ended commitment of some 130,000 or 140,000 soldiers, with temporary surges during periods of crisis. Its theory of victory seems to be that American support, nagging and cajoling can eventually bring the Iraqi security forces to maturity and gradually hand over responsibility to a democratically constituted, unitary Iraqi government. It is difficult to believe that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps -- filled with soldiers now doing their second or third tour in Iraq, including soldiers whose participation is enforced by "stop-loss" orders that keep them beyond their enlistments -- can sustain this indefinitely. The hairline cracks in the armed forces are there, and growing for those willing to see them. Public support for the war is dwindling, and most importantly, we are not only making no progress: Things are actively getting worse. So what are the alternatives?
"¢ Getting by with help from your enemies. It is bruited about in Washington that the Iraq Study Group, a collection of worthies commissioned by Congress that has spent several days in Iraq, chiefly in the Green Zone, will recommend turning to Iran and Syria to, in effect, bail out the U.S. To think that either state, with remarkable records of violence, duplicity and hostility to the U.S., will rescue us bespeaks a certain willful blindness. And to think that the Sunni states of the Arab world, much less Iraq's Sunni population, would welcome such a deal is more incredible yet. Syria is, as the Lebanon war and its earlier defense treaty with Iran demonstrated, now a client state of Iran. This option would in effect mean conceding dominance in the northern Gulf to that country; it would pave the way for more wars, and in no way guarantee us a clean exit.
"¢ Wash your hands. Simple withdrawal, with or without a timetable and surely under fire -- although American forces could probably cope with that -- would have the disadvantages of the first option, without the putative benefits. Iraq would almost surely become even more violent, with massacres of scores or even hundreds being replaced by massacres of thousands, and various regional powers straining to secure their own buffers and clients.
"¢ Double your bets. Conversely, the U.S. could react by reasserting its strength in Iraq -- sending an additional 30,000 or 40,000 troops to secure Baghdad and its environs, and making a far more strenuous effort than it has thus far to take control of the civilian ministries that are now merely fronts for political parties and their militias. But could American public opinion sustain this? More importantly, where would the soldiers come from? And has the strain on Iraqis' sense of national identity become so great that those institutions could be built?
"¢ Hunker down and let the fires burn. The U.S. military, at its current strength or something less, could, conceivably, simply retreat to its forward operating bases, do its best to train a neutral and effective military and police force, and allow communal violence to take its course. Over time, new demographic realities would emerge, as Sunnis and Shiites separate into different neighborhoods, while some minorities -- Christians, most notably -- simply flee the country. But would there be anything left once the massacres had stopped? And would they stop?
"¢ Back to counterinsurgency. One school has it that the U.S. should never have engaged directly in combat with Iraqi insurgents. Instead, it should have focused overwhelmingly on the training mission, retaining only enough combat units to rescue Iraqi forces (and their U.S. advisers) if they get in over their heads. To some extent this is already going on; but some have suggested much more radical reductions in the U.S. presence, down to 40,000 or 50,000 soldiers. The question is whether the levels of violence are so high, and the competence of the Iraqi forces so limited, that this has a chance of success. And what would be Plan C if it were to fail?
"¢ - Let the generals have it. The Iraqi government is incompetent. Its ministries are viewed not as national institutions but as the playthings of competing parties and their bands of thugs. Yet Iraqi nationalism is real, and it is found where nationalism often is -- in the armed forces. A junta of military modernizers might be the only hope of a country whose democratic culture is weak, whose politicians are either corrupt or incapable. But what would then become of the American goal of democratization? And could the generals suppress the militias that have backing from abroad, and support in local communities?
"¢ - Break it up. This option would have us concede the end of Iraq as a nation state. The precedents in the Middle East -- with the exceptions of Egypt and Iran, a collection of artificial entities produced by the highly fallible imaginations of British and French diplomats at the end of World War I -- are chilling. Presumably, population transfers on a large scale would be needed, although the problem of multiconfessional Baghdad would be particularly difficult. But it is hard to imagine that a formally independent Kurdistan would last long in the face of the hostility of all of its neighbors, or that the oil-deprived and landlocked Sunni state of western Iraq would be tranquil, or that the southern Shiastan would be able to resist Iranian penetration.
All of the options for Plan B are either wretched to contemplate or based on fantasy; the most plausible (the sixth option, a coup which we quietly endorse) would involve a substantial repast of crow that this administration will be deeply unwilling to eat. But it is not only the administration that can, and should, feel uncomfortable about the choices that lie ahead.
An honest debate about Iraq policy will require of all who participate in it to acknowledge some unpleasant facts. We must all admit, for example, that the enemy (or rather, enemies, of us and of one another) exercises a vote. We have not yet had a Tet offensive, but the experience of Hezbollah in the Lebanon war may well encourage the Shiite militias, particularly those influenced by Iran, to try something like it. Iran's influence is great, and will become greater. There will be considerable bloodshed ahead, but our choices, though they may not make it better, could make it a lot worse.
American prestige has taken a hard knock; it will probably take a harder knock, and in ways that will not be restored without a considerable and successful use of American military power down the road. The tides of Sunni salafism and Iran's distinct combination of messianism and power politics have not crested, and will not crest without much greater violence in which we too will be engaged. Whether it be the Islamization of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the subversion of conservative regimes by salafist movements, or the continuing radicalization of European Muslims, the Long War, as the administration calls it, will be even longer, and more difficult, than anyone might have thought.
It is folly to think we can win in Iraq the way some of us thought possible in 2003. It would be even greater folly to think that by getting out, learning our lessons, and licking our wounds we can save ourselves from considerable danger, expense, effort and loss in what remains a protracted and global conflict with mortal enemies.
Mr. Cohen is Robert E. Osgood professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
|
Reply:
Official: US showed ' arroganc
Replied by( Noman)
Replied on (23/Oct/2006)
Baghdad - A senior US diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national re
Official: US showed 'stupidity' in Iraq(AP)
Updated: 2006-10-22 06:53
Baghdad - A senior US diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.
In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq.
"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.
"We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation, " he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. "The Iraqi government is convinced of this."
The question of negotiations between the United States and insurgency factions has repeatedly surfaced over the past two years, but details have been sketchy. One issue that was often raised in connection with such negotiations was the extent of amnesty the United States and its Iraqi allies were willing to offer to the insurgents if they disarmed and joined the political process.
Fernandez spoke to the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera after a man claiming to speak for Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party told the network the United States was seeking a face-saving exodus from Iraq and that insurgents were ready to negotiate but won't lay down arms.
"Abu Mohammed", a pseudonym for the man, appeared to set near impossible conditions for the start of any talks with the Americans, including the return to service of Saddam's armed forces, the annulment of every law adopted since Saddam's ouster, the recognition of insurgent groups as the sole representatives of the Iraqi people and a timetable for a gradual, unconditional withdrawal of US and other foreign troops in Iraq.
"The occupier has started to search for a face-saving way out. The resistance, with all its factions, is determined to continue fighting until the enemy is brought down to his knees and sits on the negotiating table or is dealt, with God's help, a humiliating defeat," he said. The man wore a suit and appeared to be in his 40s but his face was concealed.
"There is an element of the farcical in that statement," Fernandez said of Abu Mohammed's comments. "They are very removed from reality."
Still Fernandez warned that failure to pacify the widening sectarian strife in Iraq as well as an enduring insurgency would damage the entire Middle East.
"We are witnessing failure in Iraq and that's not the failure of the United States alone but it is a disaster for the region. Failure in Iraq will be a failure for the United States but a disaster for the region."
Although the actual identity of Abu Mohammed remains unknown, the interview adds to growing indications that Iraq's Sunni insurgents sense the tide may be turning against the United States and the Iraqi government it backs.
Fernandez's comments, on the other hand, join a series of sobering remarks by President Bush and the US military in recent days.
Bush this week conceded that "right now it's tough" for US forces in Iraq and on Saturday met with his top military and security advisers to study new tactics to curb the staggering violence in Iraq. Three US Marines were killed also Saturday, making October the deadliest month for American forces in Iraq this year.
US military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said attacks in Baghdad were up 22 percent in the first three weeks of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan despite a two-month old US-Iraqi drive to crush violence in the Iraqi capital.
On Wednesday, and again on Friday, Sunni insurgents believed to belong to al-Qaida in Iraq, staged military-like parades in the heart of five towns in the vast and mainly desert province of Anbar, including the provincial capital Ramadi. Some of these parades, in which hooded gunmen paraded with their weapons, took place within striking distance of US forces stationed in nearby bases.
The parades proved to be a propaganda success, with TV footage of Wednesday's parade shown in many parts of the world, a likely embarrassment for the US military as well as the embattled Iraqi government.
Reply:
Message to the great satan and
Replied by( webmaster)
Replied on (22/Oct/2006)
A senior US diplomat said yesterday that the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq, but warned that failure in the violence-ridden Arab nation would be a disaster for t
Top US diplomat: We have shown stupidity and arrogance in Iraq
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor and David Randall
Published: 22 October 2006
A senior US diplomat said yesterday that the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq, but warned that failure in the violence-ridden Arab nation would be a disaster for the entire region.
In an interview with al-Jazeera, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the US State Department, also said the US was ready to talk with any Iraqi group - excluding al- Qa'ida in Iraq - to reach national reconciliation in the country, which is racked by widening sectarian strife as well as an enduring insurgency.
"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said. "We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the hell and the killings in Iraq are linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation, " he said, speaking in Arabic.
His remarks came as President George Bush continued to review Iraq strategy with his top generals. In his weekly radio address, broadcast yesterday, he said he would make "every necessary change" in tactics to respond to spiralling violence in Iraq, and acknowledged that a drive to stabilise Baghdad had not gone as planned. But he said he would not abandon his goal of building a self-sustaining Iraqi government. President Bush said: "The past few weeks have been rough for our troops in Iraq and for the Iraqi people... Our goal in Iraq is clear and unchanging: our goal is victory. What is changing are the tactics we use to achieve that."
Meanwhile, Tony Blair is to hold talks with Iraq's deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, in London tomorrow about an exit strategy for British troops. The Prime Minister is expected to discuss the country's escalating violence and the role that Syria and Iran could play in brokering a peace. Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, will also meet the Iraqi politician.
The London talks will focus on plans for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq, although Britain has ruled out an immediate pull-out. The discussion will also consider how to resolve the violence, including the situation in Amarah, where British troops remain on standby after it was first over-run by Shia militia and then retaken by Iraqi forces.
Yesterday, the Foreign Office stressed the need for Iran and Syria to engage with Iraq and said they could play an important role. The view chimes with that of a study group set up by the former US secretary of state, James Baker, at President Bush's request. Leaks from the Iraq study group suggest it will recommend talks with Iran and Syria - which President Bush branded part of an "axis of evil".
A senior US diplomat said yesterday that the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq, but warned that failure in the violence-ridden Arab nation would be a disaster for the entire region.
In an interview with al-Jazeera, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the US State Department, also said the US was ready to talk with any Iraqi group - excluding al- Qa'ida in Iraq - to reach national reconciliation in the country, which is racked by widening sectarian strife as well as an enduring insurgency.
"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said. "We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the hell and the killings in Iraq are linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation, " he said, speaking in Arabic.
His remarks came as President George Bush continued to review Iraq strategy with his top generals. In his weekly radio address, broadcast yesterday, he said he would make "every necessary change" in tactics to respond to spiralling violence in Iraq, and acknowledged that a drive to stabilise Baghdad had not gone as planned. But he said he would not abandon his goal of building a self-sustaining Iraqi government. President Bush said: "The past few weeks have been rough for our troops in Iraq and for the Iraqi people... Our goal in Iraq is clear and unchanging: our goal is victory. What is changing are the tactics we use to achieve that."
|